List fragile files in the workspace

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses sorting order (most fragile first), default limit, and response format. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main action. Including the full return JSON is helpful but adds length; still, every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides the complete return format and key behavioral details. Given the simple parameters and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for accurate invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit', with default and maximum defined. The description restates these but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists fragile files from workspace.json sorted by score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workspace_assess_change, workspace_get_cochange_partners, and workspace_get_file_context by focusing on a specific subset of files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for orientation at the start of a task: it tells you which parts of the codebase carry the most historical risk.' This tells when it should be used and its purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.